SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.I., S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.

Spl. Leave Petn. (C) Nos. 21613 of 1997 with 22950 and 22590 of 1997; 1481, 1799 and 16518 of 1998, and Civil Appeal No. 5962 of 1997. D/d. 16.9.1999.

Kerala State Electricity Board and another - Petitioner

Versus

Valsala K. and another etc. etc. - Respondent

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Sections 4 and 4A (as amended w.e.f. 1995) - Workmen's Compensation and interest - Amount of compensation payable - Relevant date for determining is date of the accident - Accident took place prior to amendment made in 1995 - Claimants not entitled to enhanced amount of compensation payable and higher rate of interest on account of amendment made in 1995.

[Paras 5 and 7]

Cases Referred :-

Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 Lab IC 222.

New India Assurance Company Limited v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11-1996.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 (1) Ker LT 951 (FB).

New India Ass. Co. v. V. K. Neela-kandan, Civil A. Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, Decided on 6-11-1996 (SC), Overruled.

United India Ins. Co. v. Alavi, 1998 (1) Ker LT 951 (FB), Approved.

ORDER

The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15-9-1995 ?

2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.

3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 Lab IC 222 speaking through Singhal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation, is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim.

4. A two Judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6-11-1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. The two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case, the view expressed by the two Judge Bench in Neelakandan's case is not correct.

5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 (1) Ker LT 951 (FB) wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workman becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it.

6. Having answered the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment in the negative, we shall take up this batch of special leave petitions for consideration.

7. Insofar as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above.

Civil Appeal No. 5962/1997

8. This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, dated 22-10-1996. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and is in accord with the judgment of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 Lab IC 222 as also the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 (1) Ker LT 951 (FB). There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. No costs.

Order accordingly.